In the context of computer software, today's pirates bear little resemblance to their swashbuckling counterparts of times long ago. Nonetheless, modern day computer software piracy is every bit as economically devastating as its ancient forerunner. Moreover, modern software pirates are far more difficult to identify and counteract than were the black-clad, sword wielding variety.
Generally, software pirates assume one of two forms. First, the highly skilled "commercial" pirate produces unauthorized copies of computer software for distribution without consent of the software manufacturer. Such commercial piracy requires some level of sophistication. Moreover, specialized equipment may be necessary to duplicate software to a receptive media, such as a compact disk. Such equipment is not readily available. For the economic damage caused by such commercial pirates, it pales in comparison to losses caused by "recreational pirates".
Recreational pirates are authorized users of the computer software who seek to exceed the limits of their authorization. More specifically, when an individual purchases computer software, a "limited use"-type license is conveyed by the manufacturer to the purchaser. Typical computer software limited use licenses may authorize installation of the software onto a limited number of computers, contemplating the purchaser's home, office and portable needs. The purchaser becomes a pirate when either the software is installed on computers belonging to individuals other than the purchaser, the software is installed on a greater number of machines than authorized by the license, or the software is sold by the purchaser to a subsequent purchaser without authorization by the manufacturer.
The nature of recreational piracy makes it difficult for software manufacturers and distributors to combat. Seldom do recreational pirates utilize established distribution networks or make the pirated software available to large numbers of unauthorized users. Nonetheless, the vast number of users whose use of licensed software exceeds the limits of their authorization has made recreational piracy a billion dollar drain on software sales revenues. Accordingly, several attempted solutions to recreational piracy have been commercially implemented.
In particular, the media of choice for commercial distribution of software has long been the floppy disk. Floppy disks are normally capable of supporting both read and write functions. To protect against unauthorized use, floppy disks were copy-protected. The contents of such copy-protected disks could not then be copied to a storage device internal to a computer. In other words, the floppy disk carrying the software had to actually be in a disk drive of the computer before the software could be used.
Problems with this arrangement were two-fold. First, only one user could use the software at any given time. As limited use software licenses evolved, such a restriction was often at odds with the more contemporary and acceptable practice of allowing one purchaser to purchase one software program and load it on each of several computers. Second, because running software from a floppy disk is much slower than running software from an internal computer memory device (such as a "hard drive"), software performance was severely handicapped by requiring the software to be read directly from the floppy disk during use in situations when that particular arrangement was required.
Another anti-piracy approach required a "dongle" or hardware key to insure that the software could only be used on one computer at a time. Physically attaching the dongle to a computer port enabled the use of the software. Though effective, this method still prohibited use of the software on, for instance, both home and office computers without the dongle attached. Rather, the user was required to carry the dongle back and forth so that it could be physically attached to the computer before the software was used. Without the dongle, the software could not be used.
More recently, the Acme 1.2 anti-piracy system was developed by Microsoft Corporation for use with floppy disks. Floppy disks containing the Acme 1.2 system permitted a user to install software from a floppy disk to a computer after verification that the installation was authorized. Authorization was determined by the number of times the software had been previously installed on different computers as compared to the number of installations permitted under the limited use license agreement. Specifically, such determination was made by directing the computer to write computer-specific identification information to the floppy disk on which both Acme 1.2 and the software program resided. After the identification information was written to the disk, Acme 1.2 either allowed or disallowed installation of the software program to the computer, depending on the number of different computers onto which the software had already been installed. Despite the advances of Acme 1.2 over prior methods of anti-piracy protection, shortcomings still existed.
Notably, when the software industry shifted from the floppy disk to the "read only" or "compact disk" (CD) as the media of choice for distribution of software, the Acme 1.2 system was no longer effective because computer identification information cannot be written to a CD during software installation. Without such ability, comparison between the number of computers onto which the software has been installed and the number of authorized installations cannot be performed as was done by Acme 1.2.
Additionally, anti-piracy systems such as Acme 1.2 allowed only the predetermined number of installations without contemplating frequently occurring exceptions that caused inconvenience and embarrassment to authorized users. For instance, if a user was allowed three installations and thereafter installed the software on three computers, Acme 1.2 would prevent further installation. If the user purchased a new computer planned to discard an old computer on which the software had been installed, installation of the software onto the new computer could not be accomplished because the installation limit had been met, despite the fact that the user would only be using the software on three computers, as intended and allowed by the license.
Another such exception occurred when a user installed the software on the allowed number of computers and one of the computers later required reformatting of the hard drive. Because reformatting a hard drive changes the identification information of the computer, Acme 1.2 would not allow re-installation to the same computer because it would recognize the new identification information as identification information of a different computer. Such identification would prevent the otherwise authorized installation.
These exceptions could be resolved by providing a read/write media such as a floppy disk with the sale of computer software on a CD, but for certain logistical difficulties. For example, the existence of an Acme 1.2-type system on a separate floppy disk could allow unscrupulous pirates to use a floppy disk sold in connection with one inexpensive software program to use the floppy disk to install more expensive software. If the installation authorization for the more expensive software had been exhausted, such use of interchangeable floppies could lead to improperly exceeding the installation allowance of different, more expensive software.
Furthermore, few laptop-type computers have floppy disk and CD drives which can be operated simultaneously. As such, a user who desires to install piracy-protected software from a CD to a laptop may have to exchange drives during installation (if possible) in order to execute the Acme 1.2-type authorization check contained on a floppy disk.
Therefore, in the context of protection of software from recreational piracy, there is a need to protect software distributed on CD without requiring cumbersome computer attachments, exchange of disk drives or other specialized computer equipment.
Additionally, there is a need to provide anti-piracy protection which allows the removal of the installed software from one computer and alternate installation on a different computer without treatment of the two installations as separate installations counted against a total number of authorized installations.
There is yet another need for an anti-piracy system which allows an authorized user to reinstall the software on a computer after the computer has been reformatted, also without treatment of the two installations as separate installations counted against a total number of authorized installations.